Theories of Child Rearing Styles

Theories of tyke Rearing StylesChild Development and Welf ar spend a penny Theresa, C. EricTable of Contents (Jump to)TAQ2Child Rearing StylesTAQ3TAQ4 loving reading theory goes beyond teach It goes into the world of learning because of the experiences we have along the way. dissertateReferencesTAQ2Child Rearing StylesChild breedingStyle 1Child rearing mien 2Child rearingStyle 3Child rearingStyle 4Name of styleAuthoritativePermissiveUninvolvedAuthoritarianCharacteristicsParents are democraticAttentive parentsFor fully gr have got parentsChildren are taught proper behaviorHave set of rulesPunishment to the tikeren for disobeying the rules and rewards for obedienceParents take on the role of friendsNo expectations on the kidskinChildren are allowed to touch on their own decisionsNeglect of the childrenParents put their life before the childsParents show little interaction with the childrenStrict parenting styleParents have uplifted expectations on the children little communi cation between parent and childrenHarsh punishment from the parentsNo logical reasoning for rules and punishment effect on the ramp upment of childs conscience endure to have happier dispositionsHave earnest unrestrained control and regulationDevelop omit of self disciplineBecome self-centered and demandingChildren also lack exhaustively tender skillsSense of unimportance to the parentsSense of l singlelinessLack of self-controlRarely deal on their ownThey feel pressured to conformThey become kindly withdrawnEffects on ulterior achievementA child is able to develop good societal skillsChildren become self-confident approximately(predicate) their abilities to learn unfermented skills. This is important in cognitive development and ulterior achievements of a child.They become good team leaders, team players, and learn to spur each otherwise to success.They swear in cooperative involvement, giving stack a second chance, and are likely to perform well in situations tha t need spicy level of consultation.Children in this category grow up to be tedious decision-makers, and uninfectedthorn not be best suited in situations that need swift decisions, characterized by magisterialism.Tendency to clash with authorityTend to be aggressive and act outUnderage drinking due to lack of rulesLack of good manners and ability to apply common sense in normal situationsTendency to develop self-concernSuch children grow up into irresponsible adults who cannot be trusted with important tasks (Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, Onghena, 2004).They generally become slow in implementing, innovating, and blending in.They have a hard time discerning between what is wrong and right, and may become excessively carefree in nature. Such individuals cannot impose rules, and have them implemented.Conclusively, they do not make good leaders and performers.Show patterns of truancy in schoolPatterns of delinquency during adolescenceDevelopment of un make up behaviours, generally because o f lack of archaean monitoring and guidanceChildren lack a sense of guidanceDevelopment of I dont-care attitudes, which greatly affect their behaviour and treatment of others (Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, Onghena, 2004).Inability to form teams, and work in collaborative settings they become withdrawn from the rest of the crowdLow self esteemDevelop fear of misadventureDevelop resentment of authority (Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, Onghena, 2004).They lack great teamwork abilityTend to exercise the said(prenominal) authoritarian rules on the people they interact with, or lead, subconsciously.Such children become fixated with success, meaning a single blow may mean the end of the road for them.TAQ3The study involves both child rearing styles, which include Baumrinds Parenting Style Typologies and Maccoby and Martins Parenting Style Typologies. These two parenting topologies came into existence following various parenting styles brought into focus by other(a) researchers. These include dominance /submission, acceptance/rejection, responsiveness/unresponsiveness, control/no control, emotionally involved/uninvolved, democratic/autocratic, and unpermissiveness/permissiveness (Krause, Parker, Covin, 2013).A study carried out by Baumrind in the years late 1960s and early 1970s proposed three patterns of parenting styles, which differed qualitatively. These included authoritarianism, permissiveness, and commandingness. These three styles were based on analyzing parenting in largely middle class, white families. The study by Baumrind engaged thirty-two families which were selected after prolonged observations of the preschool childrens patterns of behaviour in the greenhouse school setting. It is this study which gave birth to the three parental authority prototypic forms, such(prenominal) as authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. In Baumrinds later study, several attributes were highlighted pertaining the different parenting topologies. About authoritarian parents he concluded that they try to shape, control, and rate their childrens behaviour based on the absolute set of standards (Krause, Parker, Covin, 2013). He pointed out that parents have high adulthood demands on their children since they are uncomfortable with their inappropriate behaviours. They do not support the idea of give-and-take, and believe that children should exclusively follow the commands they have been given by parents. This requires that children exercise absolute obedience and this even extends to even when they are socializing. The authoritarian parents do not bend rules at any given moment, and expect unbending adherence (Abu, 2013). Such parents constantly demand that their children behave in a mature manner, and they pay less(prenominal) attention to psychological differentiation.These attributes were later updated by Maccoby and Martin (1983) who defined parenting style using two dimensions parental demandingness (control, supervision, maturity demands) and paren tal responsiveness (warmth, acceptance, involvement) (Abu, 2013). The interaction between the two dimensions produced four distinct parenting styles. A primary variety between Baumrinds parenting style typologies and Maccoby and Martins parenting style typologies is that Baumrind discussed on permissive parenting while Maccoby and Martin differentiates between two types of permissive parenting. About permissiveness, Baumrind (1971) suggests that parents make little mature demands on their children, as opposed to other parents discussed in the above categories. They use less punishment on their children. Besides, they let their children exercise self-control and make their own judgments. This gives an implication that they tend to tolerate their childrens misbehaviour. These parents attempt to behave in less punitive and favourable manner toward their children. They do not assert themselves as agents of modeling behaviour variegate, but present themselves as tools that can be used by the children to develop any type of want behaviour (Abu, 2013). In addition, as opposed to other parents, this category of parents does not pay close attention to children while socializing. Thus, such children become non-achievers, since little pressure is exerted on them. These children are comparable to those of authoritarian children, though they differ in the expectation the degree of their achievement.The above findings are similar to those of Park and Bauer (2002), whose main focus was to establish the family between students academic achievement and parenting styles (As cited in. Krause, Parker, Covin, 2013). The results revealed that there was a significant confirmatory relationship between authoritative parenting style and high school students academic achievement. Also shown on this study was a significant cast out relationship between authoritarian and permissive parenting style and high school students academic achievement. Culture and reading has clearly bee n shown as a factor that strongly influences the relationship between the different types of child rearing topologies. This is backed by the fact that studies carried out in different countries with different cultural setups showed different placement of relationships.TAQ4Social learning theory goes beyond conditioning It goes into the world of learning because of the experiences we have along the way. DiscussEvolutionary psychologists have always argued that conditioning is an important aspect that shapes human personality. This argument can be derived from the effect of operant conditioning on creature behaviour, and how this has been used to relate to similar effects on humans. Basically, conditioning is a type of learning in which the behaviour of an living creature of human being is do or largely modified by a series of consequences and etymons (things that happened there before). It is suggested that behaviour is liable to change in form, strength, and frequency in equal measure. Various types of conditionings have been used to modify/shape animal behaviour. These include operant conditioning (instrumental conditioning), and classical conditioning. The former mainly deals with punishment and reinforcement to bring about the desired behaviour change. On the other hand, the latter deals with behaviours that are modified by reflexes, with respect to antecedent conditions (Anderson, Bushman, 2001). However, it is not entirely true that conditioning is the major reason behind animal and human behaviour. Social learning theory is much more comprehensive and incorporates many other aspects that shape human and animal behaviour, as discussed in the proceeding sections of this paper.While conditioning mainly centers on using antecedents and experiences as the major tools that shape behaviour, social learning theories posit that there are other aspects that define human and animal behaviour, which go beyond the simple tenets of conditioning. Banduras socia l learning theory outlines that people learn from unitary another via observation, modeling, and imitation (Fuhrmann, Ravignani, Marshall-Pescini, Whiten, 2014). These three aspects go beyond the fabrics of positive and negative reinforcements, as applied in conditioning. While arguing this point out, it is important to understand what conditioning entails, especially with respect to effects of reinforcements. For instance, positive reinforcement involves rewarding an individual, especially a child, for a good work or performance achieved. It is believed that such reward systems would act as motivating factors for repeat performances. Though this school of thought might implement some weight, to some extent, it fails to take into consideration the basic fact that human and animal motivations are direct by the need to achieve a given goal, and once this is done, such kind of a reward or goal ceases to be a source of motivation. On the other hand, negative reinforcement involves a pplying punishment and punitive measures in cases of underperformance, or unruly behaviour. While this method of conditioning may be applauded as an effective means of curtailing negative behaviours, it is limited in scope, since the subject being conditioned may develop a lack of response to the punishments being leveled, and outgrow their effect. These points of weaknesses are what bring in Banduras social learning theory as an additional explanation to the behaviour development of both animals and humans.Irrespective of the shortfalls of conditioning in shaping human behaviour, social learning theorists have established that it is an important tool that determines how people react and adapt to situations. For instance, by means of the use of positive reinforcement, a child can be taught to speculate thank you after receiving a gift, and this may extend into adulthood to become a conditioned behaviour. In a similar note, negative reinforcement could be used to ensure that childr en learn to say beguile while addressing others, as show of respect, and courtesy. In cases where such is not applied, then a punishment could be launched. Such measures greatly shape the way people behave when they grow up. Basically, this closely ties with the social learning theory, as posited by Bandura, since this is also based on experiences, imitation, interactions with others, and modeling.Banduras theory of social learning has essential largely from conditioning and has, in reality, contributed to further promoting and development of the theory (Bandura, 1963). As aforementioned, the theory depends on such tenets as motivation, imitation, observation, and modeling to achieve the desired behaviour change. In respect to its connection to the theory of conditioning, the aspect of modeling reigns high. For instance, in a school setup, teachers can shape the behaviour of students by modeling the desired behaviour of course of action, through judicious application of both negat ive and positive reinforcements. A serviceable example is when a teacher wants to instill a habit of participation in a child (Kumpulainen, Wray, 2002). This can be done by offering gifts, applauding publicly, and many other positive ways. On the other hand, a teacher could curtail a negative behaviour by punishing the child through caning, deducting marks, and many others. Apart from the use of the dual aspects of reinforcement, behaviour change can also be importantly modeled through guided participation, and imitation. When training a child to be grateful in cases where one has received a gift or any form of help, a parent can restately make the child say thank you in every instance such a scenario is experienced. This repeated learning, and also through observation of what the parent usually does, will instigate imitation behaviour into the child, and later on develop the desired behaviour as modeled by the parent. Such kinds of conditionings are explicitly a derivation of th e concept of modeling, as posited by Bandura.In respect to this, it is arguable that Banduras social learning theory has developed from the concept of conditioning, and has actually helped to further its arguments. While the theory brings in new concepts that are important in shaping behaviour, it is imperative to note that its main source of argument lies on creating, modeling, and instilling a given desired behaviour into an animal or a human being. This is the same thing that conditioning theory reiterates, which is why it is perfectly right to insinuate that Bandura has helped to promote the arguments put front by the theory.(Word counts = 2,175 words).ReferencesAnderson, C.A. Bushman, B.J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and pro-social behaviour A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature.Psychological Science12(5) 353359.Bandura, A. (1963).Social learning and personality de velopment. impertinent York Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Fuhrmann, D., Ravignani, A., Marshall-Pescini, S., Whiten, A. (2014). Synchrony and motor mimicking in chimpanzee observational learning. Scientific Reports, 4. doi10.1038/srep05283.Gadeyne, E., Ghesquiere, P., Onghena, P. (2004). Longitudinal relations between parenting and child adjustment in newfangled children. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology, 22, 347-358.Kumpulainen, K., Wray, D. (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning From Theory to Practice. New York, NY RoutledgeFalmer.Miller, P. H. (2011).Theories of developmental psychology. New York Worth Publishers.Krause, R., Parker, O., Covin, J. (2013). Teach your ventures well a control-based typology of ICV parenting styles.Academy Of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 534-539.Abu Taleb, T. (2013). Parenting styles and childrens social skills as perceived by Jordanian mothers of preschool children.Early Child Development Care,183(11), 164 6.Page 1